One Nation Under God. Are we Not?
By Scott Editor | Scott's Archive
March 24, 2004

Today the Supreme Court mulled over arguments from a California atheist who objected to the daily pledges in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom. He sued her school and won, which isn't surprising considering the 9th Circuit Court is both the most liberal court in the nation and the most overturned court in the nation.

According to a new Associated Press poll, the majority of the country overwhelmingly opposes the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Nine out of ten (90%) in this country don't have a problem with their children saying the G-word before class commences, including the young girl herself and her mother who calls herself a born-again Christian.

But that hasn't stopped Michael Newdow from exploiting his child (whom supports the pledge) and running a campaign to remove the only shred of spirituality that exists in American schools and is embraced by the students, both religious and non-religious alike.

Admittedly, the pledge did not originally include "under God" and anti-pledge advocates have of course been using this fact as the base of their weak arguments. The pledge was first written in 1892 and adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942. Congress later inserted the phrase in 1954 during the Cold War.

Did you get that? It was added during the Cold War! That should tell you something. Congress didn't add "under God" to the pledge because we needed God in our schools. They didn't add it to bring Church and State closer together or try to change the tone of the academic institution. They added it because the United States needed to define itself during an era when a form of government known as Communism threatened to give the leaders and rulers certain powers and abilities that no citizenry should be subjected to. I'll get to my reasoning in a moment, but first we must understand what the pledge means and how "under God" makes it stronger.

Instead of reciting it which is what we're used to doing, let's read the pledge written out word for word and come to an understanding of what it means: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

No try saying it without the words, "under God." It loses its meaning. The message is diluted. Without "under God," the pledge basically means we are a united country with liberty and equal justice for every American. But that same message can be applied to the worst third-world countries suffering under dictatorships and oppressing despots. A country can still be united, have liberty and justice but still be subjected to a cruel lifestyle.

So how does "under God" help? Those two words, the most important words in the pledge, give Americans the greatest freedom ever; the right to answer to no one other than God. Because we proudly say "under God" everyday, we don't say under Bush, under the King, or under her Majesty. "Under God" means we are a united people under no government or ruling party. While adhering to the laws, we don't have take orders or appease any authority in this country. That's what "under God" means. There's nothing religious about it.

God, in this case, is a symbolic reference, not a monotheistic one. To be sure, Christians, Jews and Muslims can acknowledge a God(s) or presence that rules and guides them. But "under God" in this country is also useful to atheists and non-believers as well. "Under God" stands for a higher power. Whether or not it exists is according to your personal beliefs, but it's still a higher power that the government cannot touch. It's a power that no human can have over another in this country.

It is "under God" that makes us different from countries like (Communist) China where the government has control over everything. Sure the Chinese are united, have liberty and justice, but they also face government judgment. They face an intrusive government which currently has a policy that limits the number of baby girls a family can raise. That's a power no human should have over another. And in America, regardless of what you think God is or isn't, only he/she/it/nothing has that power over us.

Newdow is pushing a case without merit. He's fighting the pledge on behalf of his daughter even though she supports it, and most importantly there's no violation of the Constitution unless you and the Supreme Court ultimately believe that saying "God" in a school is an establishment of religion.

President Eisenhower, when speaking of the pledge described God as "our most powerful resource." Whatever that "powerful resource" may be, we as Americans can live our lives with the understanding that it will never be any person or his government.

I'm confident that 90% of the country will be happy after today's proceedings. Without Justice Antonin Scalia, who has recused himself because of an obvious bias in support of the pledge, the ruling might be a close one. Let's hope the lefties on the court show some sense today and respect the will of the country and allow our children to voluntarily (the key word) say the pledge in full, and show the world we answer only to God.

[  Home  |   O'Reilly Watch  |   Coulter Analysis  |   Movie Reviews  ]
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Contact Editor: Scott